The concentration of fluoride in Hamilton’s water supply is adjusted to achieve a concentration of between 0.7 to 1.0 mg/l of fluoride.

Where is the waste water for Hamilton discharged?

Hamilton’s wastewater is collected and transported to the Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant in Pukete Road for treatment. Treated effluent is discharged to the Waikato River in line with Resource Consent 114674 – Discharge of Treated Wastewater to the Waikato River.

Is there a Resource consent for the discharge of fluoridation chemicals into the TBC?

This consent specifies the conditions relating to the discharge of treated effluent to the Waikato River and does not have a requirement to monitor for Fluoridation chemicals or Fluoride compounds.

Is there a Resource Consent held by Hamilton City Council to add Hydrofluorosilicic Acid to the Hamilton’s water supplies?

Resource Consent 114674 – Discharge of Treated Wastewater to the Waikato River (attached) does not have a requirement to monitor for Fluoridation chemicals or Fluoride compounds.

How much per annum is spent on Hydrofluorosilicic acid?

The table below includes an estimation of the breakdown of annual costs associated with the fluoridation of Hamilton’s water supply.

Annual Cost

Hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFA) inclusive of Transportation

$24,000

Labour costs

$2,000

Maintenance & consumables

$12,000

Monitoring & calibration

$11,500

Safety costs (training & certification)

$500

Total Estimated Annual cost of Fluoridation

$50,000

How much per annum is spent on implementing water fluoridation?

To be advised.

How much per annum is spent on testing the levels of water fluoridation?

See answer above.

How much does it cost per Tonne of Hydrofluorosilicic Acid?

Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, along with other water treatment chemicals used on site are procured through a public tendering process. However the unit rates are covered by confidentiality clauses. Therefore, this information has been withheld under Section 7(2)(i) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 – in that release would prejudice or disadvantage the ability of a local authority holding the information to carry on negotiations. Notwithstanding this, Please refer to the first line of the table in response to question 6 for the total estimated annual cost of Hydrofluorosilicic acid for the fluoridation of Hamilton’s water supply.

How many Tonne of Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is added into Hamilton’s shared environment?

The volume of Hydrofluorosilicic Acid added to Hamilton’s water is dependent on the total water produced as well as the naturally occurring background levels of fluoride in the Waikato River water and as such can vary. Based on average water demand and levels of naturally occurring fluoride found in the Waikato River, an average of 29 kilograms of Hydrofluorosilicic acid is added to 53,000,000 litres of water produced on average each day at the water treatment plant.

How frequent is the levels of fluoride in the water tested?

Fluoride levels are continuously monitored at the water treatment plant using online instrumentation. Additional grab samples are taken twice per week and analysed by IANZ (International accreditation New Zealand) accredited and MoH (Ministry of Health) approved laboratories.

When did fluoridation begin in Hamilton and has there been any public consultation since beginning?

Fluoridation started in 1966.

Public sources of non-fluoridated water

On 21st April 2016 the Hamilton City Council approved a site at the Claudelands Events Centre to install a public source of non-fluoridated water with a capital cost of $70,000.

It is a handy central city location, conveniently placed near the venue for Hamilton’s Sunday Farmer’s Market. To find the tap, use Gate 2 off Heaphy Terrace, which leads to the historic Grandstand building. There is plenty of parking and the tap is in the carpark just by the children’s playground and the public toilets.

Reverse Osmosis (RO) was found to be the most appropriate treatment technology for this type of water filling station. As chlorine is added to this water supply, it achieves an ‘A’ grading. It became operational on 29 September 2016

This outlet has two taps at different heights as well as a drinking fountain. The lower tap has a hose connection suitable for connecting ordinary flexible garden hoses, for easy filling of large containers that are too heavy to lift.An existing natural shallow bore water supply at the beautiful Taitua Arboretum (6.4km out of town on Howden Rd, Whatawhata) has also been endorsed as a suitable source of public non-fluoridated water, with the addition of an Ultra Violet (UV) filter now achieving it a ‘B’ grading with NZ Drinking Water Standards. No chlorine is added to this water. There is a single tap supplied at this site. The carpark is open 7 days a week from 8am to half an hour before dusk

Not surprisingly there is a steady stream of enthusiastic “pure water” users queuing up at both outlets on a daily basis. Of course, what Hamilton residents really need is non-fluoridated water coming out of their own taps at home, but in the meantime, the two public non-fluoridated outlets are better than nothing.

Hamilton City 2015 Long Term Plan

Information release by Hamilton City Council on the Long Term Plan

On 4 and 5 June 2015 the Mayor and Councillors considered all submissions and on 30 June adopted the final 10-Year Plan. The final 10-Year Plan, is available the HCC website at www.hamilton.govt.nz/10yearplan

LTP Update 5 June 2015

It was exactly two years to the day (5 June 2013) since Hamilton City Council voted fluoride out after taking part in the 4 day tribunal – when they this year voted 9-2 in principle for up to two non-fluoridated water outlets for the city using reverse osmosis technology. This decision is still conditional on a feasibility report which staff will work on with the submitters, keeping within an allocated budget of $60K initial set up costs and $5K annual costs. Decision will be ratified on 30th June. They had received 73 submissions asking for a non-fluoridated water outlet.

Legal Action Withdrawn

1. What is your viewpoint regarding Water Fluoridation? 2. What has influenced your viewpoint about Water Fluoridation? See our Candidates page for their responses.

The Hamilton Stop Fluoridation Campaign was succesfull with Hamilton city councillors voting 7 to 1 to stop fluoridation on the 5th of June 2013. In 2006 a referendum was held where 70% of people voted FOR fluoridation. However only 38% of people voted.

Before the Summing up by both sides, councillors posed the following three questions to both sides. Do you agree:
1. Fluoride works by topical application to teeth? 2. There is no known benefit of fluoride to pre-eruptive teeth? 3. Swallowing fluoride toothpaste is harmful to health?
Both sides agreed to all three questions; that fluoride works topically, ingesting fluoride toothpaste is dangerous and that there is no benefit to pre-erupted teeth. In other words, fluoride works by contact to the teeth ONLY.

May 2013 – A huge response to the Hamilton Fluoridation Tribunal Hearing:

1557 submissions received

170 support the continuation of fluoride

1385 support the stopping of fluoride

2 had no stance (commented on process or mandate of council to decide)

This represents a whopping 89% wanting fluoridation stopped. Council originally recieved 141 requests to speak. 130 wanting fluoridation stopped and only 11 wanting it continued. Most of the 11 people were dentists or dental therapists. .

According to Hamilton City Council:

A total of 984 submitters indicated they were Hamilton residents or ratepayers. A further 74 submitters indicated they were Hamilton water users (but not ratepayers or residents).

The key reasons for submitters wanting Council to stop the fluoridation of the Hamilton water supply were around individuals having the right to choose what they ingest (994), the links between fluoride to a number of illnesses, risks and harm (807) and the perception that fluoride is considered ineffective (741).Of those wishing Council to continue to fluoridate the water supply (170), the key reasons were the perception that fluoridating the water supply is a cost-effective population-based strategy to prevent dental cavities (124), that there is scientific research to support fluoridation (45) and people citing their own experiences with the benefits (or problems due to the lack) of fluoride (46).

Hamilton city councillors have decided on a Tribunal style process as the method for consulting residents on whether they would like to stop fluoridation.

Submissions will be accepted from the 1st of March to the 2nd of April. People can say if they would like to speak or not.

The Hearing will be held on the 28th and 29th of May 2013 and maybe the 30th of May if there are lots of people wanting to speak. There will also be 1 hour for each side to give a primary presentation plus each person who said on their submission that they would like to speak, will be given ten minutes. .

Public Consultation or Referendum in HCC Long Term Plan

Fluoridation was the 3rd most popular topic submitted to the Hamilton City Council for the 2011/2012 draft Annual Plan with over 100 submissions. An afternoon was set aside to hear from all the people who wished to speak to their submission. It kicked off with Dr Peter Scanlon (Poisoning Paradise fame) followed by Dr Vernon Kruger (local dentist) and then all the other Hamiltonians. This has resulted in a very successful outcome with Cr Dave McPherson successfully tabling an amendment to include a referendum or public consultation on stopping the addition of fluoride to the city water supply in the 2012-2022 Long Term Plan. Well done all, next year will be the year for Hamilton unless anyone can convince the Council to turn off the fluoride in the meantime.

Notes from the meeting:

Motion: (Her Worship the Mayor/Cr Westphal)

That Council continue the practice of adding fluoride to Hamilton’s water supply in the target range of 0.7 mg/l and 0.8 mg/l.

Amendment: (Crs Macpherson/Gower)

That Council signals the intention to consult, including the possibility of a referendum, concerning the removal of artificial fluoridation from Hamilton’s water supply as part of the 2012/2022 Long Term Plan.

Those for Her Worship the Mayor, Councillors Bell, Chesterman, Forsyth, Gallagher, Gower, Hennebry, Mahood, the Amendment: O’Leary, Westphal and Wilson.

The Amendment was declared carried.

The Amendment as the Motion was then put and declared carried on the voices.

Friday, 29 April 2011, 4:34 pm Press Release:Hamilton City Council

Record number of Annual Plan submissions received More than 1600 submissions have been received for Hamilton City Council’s Proposed 2011/12 Annual Plan. In total 1605 submissions were received during the period from 21 March to 21 April 2011 – making it Council’s biggest Proposed Annual Plan/LTCCP submission process in over 10 years.
The main issues referred to in the submissions include the proposed cycling velodrome (over 900 submissions), the proposed Hamilton to Auckland passenger train service (over 200 submissions), requests to remove fluoride from Hamilton’s water supply (over 100 submissions) and the establishment of Council Controlled Organisations (over 30 submissions)……..Hearings for submissions have been set down for 10-12 May. The submissions will be made available at www.hamilton.co.nz/apsubmissions by Wednesday. The total number of submissions received during the 2010/11 Annual Plan process was 184. ENDS

A huge amount of work was done in Hamilton in 2003 presenting information to the Hamilton City Council and getting out in the community spreading information.

A Council meeting was held where campaigners presented the anti-fluoridation position while the Ministry flew someone in from Wellington to support the local DHB representative in giving the “pro” side – with the standard issue PowerPoint presentation. The presenter couldn’t even get dates and basic facts right, and obviously knew nothing of the subject – just parroting the propaganda she had been fed.

Because of the pressure exerted both by these campaigners and some of the councillors, the Hamilton City Council agreed to commission an independent report of the fluoridation issue. However they actually organised for one of their officers to do it. It all looked very hopeful with the scientist, Marcus Shipton, being supplied with a huge amount of research material which he seemed eager to study. We thought that the council would then vote to have a referendum on the issue at the next local body elections.

But not to be. The report was appalling:

It failed to cover the issues raised before the council – contamination of the substance used (HFA) and lack of any human health safety testing;

It failed to give a single scientific reference to substantiate any of the standard generalisations used in promotional propaganda;

It completely misrepresented the York Review findings – in spite of Mr Shipton having the public statement by the chairman of the review board;

And in the absence of facts, recited the usual references to “reputable world bodies” who support fluoridation to hide the report’s total ineptitude.

The Hamilton City Council voted 6 to 5 to remain with fluoridation.

Campaigners will continue to work in Hamilton. We commend those councillors who have already stood up against this misguided practice. It only needs one more councillor to change their mind and Hamilton will go the other way. It only needs one more councillor to realise that people have a fundamental right to decide what they drink and what medication they take.

So the battle is on: what can you do to end fluoridation and protect your own health?

Hamilton remains fluoridated, but the issue will be raised for the local body elections in 2004.

$5 a month Campaign

We ask concerned citizens to contribute $5 per month to help fund this campaign Donate Here

Fluoridation Legislation awaits 2nd Reading

Legislation for mandatory fluoridation was introduced by the National Government in 2016. It now awaits 2nd Reading. See HERE for details.

The NZ School Dental Statistics are the most robust set of data we have on dental health in New Zealand. The Ministry of Health have now published the 2015 data which show no difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.
See Graphs